Norm wrote:
1. How many people on the planet are both smart and knowledgeable enough
to have done that?
I don't know that smart has anything to do with it. MH/nmh formatting is
documented, and while cryptic, it gets the job done. fmttest(1) is very
helpful when working with format strings.
2. There is a line:
%<{fcc}Fcc: %{fcc}\n%>\
Containing the string, "fcc", twice and the string "Fcc" once. But it
produces no Fcc line; NOR do I want it to.
You can remove that line if you'd like, see below.
What's going on?
If you're asking what that format string does: if there's an Fcc:
header field in the message being replied to, it will use its contents
in the draft. If there isn't an FCC: header field in the message being
replied to, it will do nothing.
fmttest can show this. It can be run on a message that's constructed to
show what you want. Or it can take its values from strings on the command
line, with the text component, %{text}, taking its values from the command
line strings (and therefore the format strings below use {text} instead of
{fcc}):
$ fmttest -format '%<{text}Fcc: %{text}\n%>' -raw '+outbox'
Fcc: +outbox
$
$ fmttest -format '%<{text}Fcc: %{text}\n%>' -raw ''
$
If you're asking why that replcomps would look in the replied-to message
for an Fcc: component, that's a good question. I don't think it's a good
idea. Perhaps the author wanted to reply to their own drafts? It's been
there as far back as I can tell, which is over 26 years.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers